Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

even if the base rising though measured is not shown, how can temp rise of a degree or so (in 15 mins btw) from bulbs well ventillated expand anything in measurable units.
You people know nothing about shrink fits or boiler tubes expansion, do you? and yet you keep harping about expansion causing anti gravity effects. pity no mechanical engineers with experience are on here
repeating thermal expansion over and over again doesn't make it true, you know

I have a question, relativity related.

There is two planets, let's say ten thousand light years apart... right ?
And on both planets, there is intelligent lifeforms with telescopes, optical, radio, what so ever...
Planet A and Planet B
The technological development takes some time, so planet A sees planet B as primitive, 10k years back in time, right ?
Also planet B sees planet A 10K years back in time...
now... both, from our perspective in time, develop an spaceship that can go 99% of the speed of Einstein's absolute speed, the speed of light.

So.. a traveler from planet A and from planet B take a trip and arrive at the other planet after...
this is the question,
after what time seen from perspective of planet A, and after what time seen from perspective of planet B, and after what time seen from our perspective traveler A and traveler B arrive relative to planet A and B and our POV ?
This question requires six answers ( just a hint )

BTW
I did commented on this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

wanted to bring it up into discussion here
.

my comment to this statement...

“For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

was...

NO!!!
first of all... electromagnetism are two forces.. electric and magnetic... not one
strong and weak nuclear forces are just assumptions.
gravity... I will come to that later...

Why strong and week force ?
Because without them, the theory doesn't work...
in truth, those strong and week forces were invented.

We know the electric force... we know it creates magnetic force...
We know magnetic force, we know it creates the electric force...
We use both all the time every day 24/7
because those are all the forces we can manipulate and really exist.

Strong force ? is just an invention that fits the theory, preventing electrons fall into a proton.
Week force ? another invention to explain what we observe...

Gravity is an observation... things fall... so what ? can anyone manipulate this so called force ? NO.
It is not a force on it's own... it is a result of electric interaction.

so... as I can count, if anything new shall be invented, the math doesn't work

.....

and really, if someone doesn't agree... take a history lesson on the theory

User 'kashai' started a thread about planetary engineering. The question was can we cool Venus by effectively blocking the sun's radiation.

So, can something like Newton's law of cooling be used to figure this out? I briefly looked at it, but have a problem with the parameters/initial conditions.

So let's say that Venus is 500c. We know that most of the heat is due to the co2 in the atmosphere (greenhouse effect). Since it is 67,000,000 million miles from the sun, and we are about 93,000,000, then inverse square law says it gets, what, double the solar radiation we do?

So, can anyone figure out (roughly) how much Venus would cool in, say, a year assuming that it received no solar radiation in that time (so 'ambient' temperature would be not too much above absolute zero)?

Or would Newton's law of cooling not be applicable.

Can anyone do back-of-the-napkin swag on this?

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma
well they do do 1 on 1...

lots of particles in each bunch but the actual number of impacts at the interaction point is still very small...

Anyway, will be no point in talking with you in particular, your not exactly open to anything beyond 'EM is everything'

sorry if I don't remember... but was it you who told us something about some kind of detector, photon detector I think, you were working on, or invented it or something??
few pages down here ...
it was something about photons and how you know they exist

I asked you a question and you never answered...

your detector is made of atoms, right ? how can you be sure there is some "cannon ball" like thing hitting just one of the sensors at any time and not what I think... that there is a wave hitting all at once, but not every sensor responses the same way depending of it's moment configuration * proton electron interaction ?

originally posted by: TommyD1966
User 'kashai' started a thread about planetary engineering. The question was can we cool Venus by effectively blocking the sun's radiation.

So, can something like Newton's law of cooling be used to figure this out? I briefly looked at it, but have a problem with the parameters/initial conditions.

So let's say that Venus is 500c. We know that most of the heat is due to the co2 in the atmosphere (greenhouse effect). Since it is 67,000,000 million miles from the sun, and we are about 93,000,000, then inverse square law says it gets, what, double the solar radiation we do?

So, can anyone figure out (roughly) how much Venus would cool in, say, a year assuming that it received no solar radiation in that time (so 'ambient' temperature would be not too much above absolute zero)?

Or would Newton's law of cooling not be applicable.

Can anyone do back-of-the-napkin swag on this?

a reply to: KrzYma

Wow I think I lost intelligence watching that video it's the dumbest thing I think I've ever seen trying to impersonate science. Every observation we have made on the sun and our solar system directly contradicts this video. It ignores litterally the last 5 decades of discoveries about our sun and our solar system. It's like this nut job doesn't even realize we have satellites and have been collecting data on the planets and sol. There is no external source for a sun we know this as fact solar wind radiates outward in all directions. It also contains electrons protons and neutrons. For electric universe model to work we would need electrons flowing out and protons flowing in to the sun. In other words you have to create an electric current just like a neon light and you wouldn't get the solar spectrum we get from the sun.

Why is it thus archaic idea from early 1900s still holds on?? Once we discovered nuclear reactions this idea became obsolete.

originally posted by: mbkennel

It violates special theory only if you assume a local realistic theory based on local fields (like gravitation and electromagnetism). But QM isn't like that, it's in an incomprehensible (to human intuition) functional space, and that's what all the entanglement business is about.

Greetings, mbkennel and good to hear from you again! Yes, after Aspect, Dalibard and Roger (ADR) proved that Bell's theorem sided with QM over relativity in the matter of Einsten Podolski Rosen (EPR), the answer that became the status quo was to abandon objective reality as it pertains to QM. Yet Einstein was a big proponent of objective reality back in his day, so I am not convinced you know what he would think.

However, even before EPR, Bell, and ADR, relativity had a problem with QM. The problem was the two slit experiment. The only realistic interpretation of the results that makes sense to me is that the wave function collapses instantaneously upon interaction with the second wall. The special relativity theory (SRT) does not allow things to be instantaneous over finite spatial spreads, because, in such cases, two co-moving observers will disagree on the meaning of "instantaneous". So really, SRT had a problem with QM right from the start as far as I am concerned.

QM is entirely comprehensible under a Lorentzian space-time (with or without a length contraction). Once we set SRT aside, we are able to consider a very understandable model wherein wave functions are the square root of the density of the entity, just like the old classical electromagnetic fields were. There is a bit of work still to do once we consider the interactions, and QFT may bring in its own issues, but QM by itself is certainly readily comprehensible under a Lorentzian viewpoint.

By the way - please let me know if my answer to you on my other thread addressed your questions there. (That thread is at: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

originally posted by: mbkennel

Don't bet against Einstein.

Lol famous last words, but it has some merit.
2 years ago i was in the persuit of publishing 2 papers on arxiv, and sent them to a french and german physicist. while both were appreciative of the novel concepts, none of them were willing to stick their necks out and authorise me.
Although the french physicist told me to protect my work using only pdf files, the german physicist said that i would not make any friends in the scientific community, if i go against einstein.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I have a question, relativity related.

There is two planets, let's say ten thousand light years apart... right ?
And on both planets, there is intelligent lifeforms with telescopes, optical, radio, what so ever...
Planet A and Planet B
The technological development takes some time, so planet A sees planet B as primitive, 10k years back in time, right ?
Also planet B sees planet A 10K years back in time...
now... both, from our perspective in time, develop an spaceship that can go 99% of the speed of Einstein's absolute speed, the speed of light.

So.. a traveler from planet A and from planet B take a trip and arrive at the other planet after...
this is the question,
after what time seen from perspective of planet A, and after what time seen from perspective of planet B, and after what time seen from our perspective traveler A and traveler B arrive relative to planet A and B and our POV ?
This question requires six answers ( just a hint )

Since in your question A and B appear to be in the same reference frame (they are not moving with respect to each other) the answer to your question is pretty sraight forward. While the telescopes do see things 10,000 years in the past, we know that it took 10,000 years for the light to reach us, so we know that their time and ours really is the same once we synchronize the starting point of all clocks. From our perspective (the frame of A and B), both the A-traveler and the B-traveler will arrive at their destination in t = (10,000 c-years)/(.99c) = 10,101 and 1/99th years, where c is the speed of light. Since both the A-traveler and the B-traveler are travelling at gamma = (1-.99^2)^[-1/2] ~= 7.0888, any clocks they have with them will record the trip as taking 10,101 and 1/99th years divided by gamma, or approximately 1425 years.

If A and B are moving with respect to each other, the calculation gets somewhat harder for us to do.

originally posted by: TommyD1966
Or would Newton's law of cooling not be applicable.

It doesn't apply to thermal radiation and that's how Venus would cool, via thermal radiation.

Can anyone do back-of-the-napkin swag on this?

I think you could use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate thermal emission, but you would need to know the effective emissivity, and I don't know the emissivity of Venus. I'm not sure if anybody knows, but for the proposed VERITAS mission, the "E" in Veritas stands for "Emissivity" which would be one of the mission goals to measure.

VERITAS: A mission to study the highest priority Decadal Survey questions for Venus

The Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography And Spectroscopy (VERITAS) Mission, a proposed NASA Discovery mission, seeks to produce high-resolution altimetry and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging, thermal emissivity, and an improved gravity field.

I can tell you that emissivity of Venus would be 1.0 if it was a blackbody with no greenhouse gases, but obviously it has substantial greenhouse gases so emissivity is substantially less than 1.0, but how much less I don't know.

Temperature was easy to find but you have to convert degrees C to degrees K for the Stefan-Boltzmann formula:

What is the Average Surface Temperature on Venus?

Whereas the Earth has an average surface temperature of 14 degrees Celsius, the average temperature of Venus is 460 degrees Celsius.

This talks about some of the math if you want to pursue it:
Introduction to a Simple Planetary Climate Model

Here's an online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator:
calculator.tutorvista.com...

NASA ’s new climate model of ancient Venus shows a picture of a habitable world

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in a report published Thursday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, calculated that the average surface temperature 2.9 billion years ago was about 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Such temperature would have made Venus, surprisingly for a planet closer to the Sun, a bit chillier than Earth was at the time.

That is surprising since as you said the inverse-square law means Venus gets much more energy from the sun than Earth, where your guess on how much more probably isn't far off. The ratio of emissivity of Venus to that of Earth had to be different in the past for Venus to have been cooler than Earth instead of warmer, if one assumes that model is valid.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Is this a creative writing exercise?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Nochzwei

Is this a creative writing exercise?

Lol your analytical power is dangerously or pathetically lacking

a reply to: delbertlarson

QM won. The Bell's theorem tests show actions at a distance that occur in a faster than light way..

What if Bell's theorem is a continuation (or combined with, or same thing) of uncertainty principle? Uncertainty principle states two descriptors cannot be known together on the same photon..., position and momentum, where Bell is introducing a single descriptor for two events?

Do I make any sense??


cheers)

a reply to: KrzYma

The technological development takes some time, so planet A sees planet B as primitive, 10k years back in time, right ?

My answer to this will be philosophical at best.
Aged light, past events, peeking into the past, all of this an illusion.
As an example of what I mean, look at fossil bone. What do you see? Do you see events of the past? No. Looking at excavated fossils you see fossils. Nothing else. Armed with knowledge formulas you can tell where they came from and it's age and probable past, but you will not see past itself.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: delbertlarson

QM won. The Bell's theorem tests show actions at a distance that occur in a faster than light way..

What if Bell's theorem is a continuation (or combined with, or same thing) of uncertainty principle? Uncertainty principle states two descriptors cannot be known together on the same photon..., position and momentum, where Bell is introducing a single descriptor for two events?

Do I make any sense??


cheers)

In some sense you are right - Bell's theorem describes a single quantum state measured in two ways. In another sense, you are a bit off, since once the coupling between the entities is broken by measurement (or, I believe, the interaction involved in the measurement) the entities are no longer coupled.

But whether you look at things your way or not, it doesn't get around the fact that the results are a clear problem for special relativity. The point is that something is happening that exceeds the speed limit required by special relativity. If we accept the postulate of an objective reality, the results of the Bell's theorem tests prove that special relativity is wrong and we should go back to the theory of Lorentz. Faced with this dilemma, the status quo fall back is to claim that objective reality should be questioned when dealing in the quantum realm. We are told that the human mind is simply incapable of understanding what is going on. I disagree with the status quo, and instead believe in something that is really quite simple: wavefunctions are the square root of the density of the entity in a Lorentzian view of space and time. It really isn't hard to understand at all.

a reply to: greenreflections
I don't see any correlation between your fossil example when you're looking at a piece of rock in the present, compared to watching a supernova that happened millions of years ago. Nobody thinks they are looking at past events when they look at a fossil, they are looking at present remains of creatures which used to exist.

Starlight is vastly different. The illusion with starlight is that when a naive person looks at the supernova they might think that because they are seeing it now, that it's happening now, as they see it. That's the illusion, so yes there's an illusion but you have it backwards.

They are truly watching a supernova that happened a long time ago, which is totally different than looking at a fossil in the present.

What some of you are missing is that quantum non-locality does not mean that "something" is travelling faster of light in order to generate the observed correlations between entangled quantum states, in violation of the predictions of Special Relativity. Where Einstein erred was in persisting in believing in classical realism, i.e., the central assumption of classical physics that matter - whatever form it takes - possesses definite, sharply defined properties before being observed.
The problem of understanding quantum mechanics arises from the fact that reality is non-local; the apparent realism of macroscopic, classical reality embedded in Einstein's space-time continuum is merely an illusion on the microscopic scale. Until physicists truly come to terms with the holistic nature of quatum systems, wherein it is not meaningful to treat their components as behaving classically, the tension between relativity and quantum theory will continue. Such paradox points towards the necessity of a more complete understanding of reality in order to resolve it. Physicists must start taking their gaze off the shadows on the cave wall and leave the cave itself. Then they will understand for the first time why local realism does not pertain outside the cave.

originally posted by: micpsi
What some of you are missing is that quantum non-locality does not mean that "something" is travelling faster of light in order to generate the observed correlations between entangled quantum states, in violation of the predictions of Special Relativity. Where Einstein erred was in persisting in believing in classical realism, i.e., the central assumption of classical physics that matter - whatever form it takes - possesses definite, sharply defined properties before being observed.
The problem of understanding quantum mechanics arises from the fact that reality is non-local; the apparent realism of macroscopic, classical reality embedded in Einstein's space-time continuum is merely an illusion on the microscopic scale. Until physicists truly come to terms with the holistic nature of quatum systems, wherein it is not meaningful to treat their components as behaving classically, the tension between relativity and quantum theory will continue. Such paradox points towards the necessity of a more complete understanding of reality in order to resolve it. Physicists must start taking their gaze off the shadows on the cave wall and leave the cave itself. Then they will understand for the first time why local realism does not pertain outside the cave.

What do you mean by "reality is non-local"? Does that mean actions at a distance are allowed? If so, how do you reconcile that with the special theory?

Also it is not entirely clear, so I will ask - do you support an objective reality? If you do not, what do you replace it with?

originally posted by: micpsi
What some of you are missing is that quantum non-locality does not mean that "something" is travelling faster of light in order to generate the observed correlations between entangled quantum states, in violation of the predictions of Special Relativity.

In the Everett Interpretation discussed by physicist Sean Carroll in the OP video, reality in our universe might be entirely local and nobody has proven that interpretation wrong to my knowledge though it's not philosophically pleasing, but as Carroll points out, some of the consequences of the alternatives are also not philosophically pleasing. The fact is nobody knows and we haven't figured out tests to solve the riddle of the correct interpretation of QM, though the Bell tests made some progress.

Until physicists truly come to terms with the holistic nature of quatum systems, wherein it is not meaningful to treat their components as behaving classically, the tension between relativity and quantum theory will continue.

The tension continues because we don't have a model for quantum gravity, or whatever nature substitutes for that. The tension does not exist because physicists have some delusion that quantum objects behave classically, they clearly understand that's not the case, as described by this physics FAQ site:

Ask the Van

the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity. In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate.

The world at a small scale cannot be put together out of anything like the pictures we're used to at a large scale.